Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Here is our next event for the NexGen group of the Financial Planning Association!

October 3rd 11am-3pmSoCal NexGen Gathering
The Future of Financial Planning

Location: UC Irvine 
The Paul Merage School of Business
4293 Pereira Drive
Building SB2, Room # 232/MPR
Irvine, CA 92697-3125 


Robots are descending upon our industry... do you have the tools to stay relevant?

We're teaming up with Orange County, LA and San Gaberial's NexGen Chapters to have a combined Saturday event. Learn about the newest technology trends and opportunities in financial planning from Betterment, LearnVest, Charles Schwab, and Oranj. Sign up now on 
EventBrite.

We're also organizing a carpool to help get you there (or so you can help get us there!) Also, submit your vote for a break out session today!



FAQs

What are my transport/parking options getting to the event?
You will need to park at the parking structure located at Campus Drive and Stanford. It is called the Social Science Parking Structure (SSPS). It is yellow in the picture below. Parking prices are here.

The actual location of the event is The Paul Merage School of Business SB2, Room 232/MPR. It is the blue building below and I have an arrow pointing to the proximity of the room.  Directions are here.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Chronic Illness? High Tax Bracket? Opt for the HDHP

Here is my article published in LifeHealthPro, re-posted on my own blog.


HDHP's for the Young & Healthy

It is often suggested that those in good health should opt for a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) (Waggoner 2013, Cannon 2013, Lahey 2012 , Miller 2014). The logic behind the argument is relatively simple:
A high deductible health plan will save a healthy person money. This savings comes from the low health insurance premiums, and the absence of ongoing medical care. HDHP premiums are much lower than the premiums of conventional health insurance plans – insurance plans with conventional deductibles. Since preventative care is included at no - or reduced - cost, there is considerable savings available with a HDHP. 
It is a relatively simple formula:

Low Premiums + Free/Low Cost Preventative Care = Savings 


The Bogleheads Approach to High-Cost Healthcare: Total Return

This begs the question: if you’re unhealthy, should you opt for a conventional health plan? Not necessarily. Bogleheads makes the point: 
You are most likely to benefit from an HDHP if you are either in good health or have very high prescription drug costs. 
Why? Because a HDHP effectively caps your liability. To illustrate, consider a fictitious example:
Themistocles is in poor health, with high ongoing medical expenses. Each year, Themistocles must pay medical expenses, including prescription drug costs, to the tune of $100,000. Themistocles can choose either a HDHP or a conventional “platinum” level plan. Irregardless of the plan selected, Themistocles will reach the out-of-pocket maximum.

You can see in the chart above that the answer is clear: even though the HDHP has a higher deductible, the cost savings offered by the lower premiums more than makes up for the higher out-of-pocket maximum. For the individual undergoing high cost healthcare, the HDHP is the superior choice. Bogleheads is correct. Themistocles saves $458 by opting for the HDHP.

Low Premiums + Capped Liability = Savings


But, this comparison ignores one important variable (and the topic of this post): Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and the tax benefits available when utilizing them.

Health Savings Account and Tax-Deductions

 Tax-deductible contributions are made to a Health Savings Account (HSA) and are withdrawn tax-free to pay for qualified medical expenses (Internal Revenue Service 2013). Going back to our example:
Themistocles is in poor health. As such, he contributes the maximum he can into his HSA account each year, $3,300 (Internal Revenue Service 2013). He does this because he knows that he will  reach his HDHP's out-of-pocket maximum. Having made the contribution to the HSA, Themistocles now has a tax deduction.
For those taking the Boglehead approach to high-cost health care, the tax-deductible contribution changes the after-tax cost of selecting an HDHP by a function of the individual's tax bracket.



This means that for Themistocles, the HDHP turns out to be an even better deal; instead of savings just $458, Themistocles is now looking at a savings of as much as $1,765.


Granted, the tax-advantaged Bogleheads strategy is only useful for those who know ahead of time that they are going to incur high medical expenses. For those with high ongoing medical expenses, the higher tax bracket one is in – the better a deal a HDHP is.


In short, if an unhealthy individual opts for a HDHP, hitting their deductible annually, the tax savings offered by an HSA in combination with a HDHP's low premiums - but capped liability - makes for significant  savings.

Low Premiums + Capped Liability + Tax Deduction = Great Savings


Consider the matrix below for deliberation on opting for a HDHP.


In the Middle

For those in the middle, individuals with moderate ongoing medical expenses may be best served by electing a conventional plan. With a HDHP, the individual may have to pay many costs out of pocket but never reach the deductible – the point at which the HDHP begins paying benefits. Consider:
Darius must see a chiropractor every month for a treatment costing $335 per visit ($4,020 annually), which Darius would have to pay out of pocket were he to elect a HDHP. (The chiropractor's treatment does not qualify as preventative). Though the expense of the chiropractor visits add up, the total out-of-pocket is not enough to get Darius to the top of his deductible.

Were to Darius to elect a conventional health plan, he would only be liable for a $40 copay for each visit ($480 annually). However, Darius would be liable for higher monthly premiums than that charged by a HDHP.
With such a narrow margin between the sum of all out-of-pocket expenses and the deductible, the tax deduction offered by HSA contributions play an important role in determining which health plan is the superior choice. When in a 10% tax bracket, the HDHP proves the inferior choice.


 In a higher tax bracket, a HDHP proves a wise move:


 However, if out-of-pocket expenses rise far above the amount that can be deducted with HSA contributions, then the conventional plan - with its high premiums but low co-pays - wins out:


Takeaway

The matrix below summarizes the article:


The individual in the high tax bracket, and in poor health, (dark green box) has the greatest potential to benefit by utilizing a HDHP. Not only will the individual will be paying low premiums for a defined out-of-pocket maximum, but the individual will benefit greatly by paying for those expenses with severely discounted after-tax dollars. For the individual in poor health and in the high tax bracket, the HDHP is extremely advantageous.

The individual with moderate health issues (yellow & red boxes) will need to decide if the tax benefits offered by a HSA will balance the out-of-pocket expenses required in a HDHP. This may be the case if the individual is in a high tax bracket (yellow box), with the out-of-pocket expenses hovering near the maximum allowable contribution ($3,300 for individuals). While the out-of-pocket expenses may be high, the combination of the low premiums and the tax savings with HSA contributions may render the HDHP election worthwhile. However, the individual in low tax bracket with moderate health expenses (red box) should opt for a conventional plan, and not a HDHP.

Individuals in good health (top row, light green boxes) will pay smaller premiums and little, if any, out-of-pocket expenses. Those individuals in good health are less able to take advantage of the tax-savings offered to the degree that an individual in poor health can.

An individual in poor health in a low tax bracket (lower left) will have their out of pocket expenses capped annually. Though still a good fit, this low-tax-bracket-individual will not be able to generate as much tax savings as an individual in a high tax bracket.

Works Cited 

Cannon, Ellen. "Ask the Readers: High-deductible health insurance: yea or nay?" Get Rich Slowly. November 8, 2013. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2013/11/08/high-deductible-health-insurance/.
Covered California. "Your Options." Covered California. 2013. https://www.coveredca.com/shopandcompare/#healthplans.
FairHealth. "Understanding High Deductible Health Plans." FH Consumer Cost Lookup. 2014. http://fairhealthconsumer.org/reimbursementseries.php?id=27.
Internal Revenue Service. "Instructions for Form 8889." Internal Revenue Service. 2013. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i8889.pdf.
—. "Publication 969." Internal Revenue Service. 2013. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p969.pdf.
Kaiser Family Foundation. "Kaiser Family Foundation." 2013 Employer Health Benefits Survey. Aug 20, 2013. http://kff.org/report-section/2013-summary-of-findings/.
Lahey, Joanna. "HDHP with HSA: friend or foe?" Get Rich Slowly. Nov 17, 2012 . http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2012/11/17/hdhp-with-hsa-friend-or-foe/.
Miller, G.E. "What is a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP)? Updated for 2014." 20 Something Finance. January 5, 2014. http://20somethingfinance.com/what-is-a-high-deductible-health-plan-hdhp/.
Story, Louise. "Health Savings Accounts Gain Momentum." Wall Street Journal. Sept. 9, 2004. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB109468408162712961.
Waggoner, John. "Is a high-deductible health plan right for you?" USA Today. September 24, 2013. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/09/24/high-deductible-health-care-plans/2848181/.
Zamosky, Lisa. "Many opt for high-deductible health plans despite risks." The Los Angeles Times. May 5, 2013. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/05/business/la-fi-healthcare-watch-20130505.

Monday, October 21, 2013

Why Eat (Pay) More Donuts (Money) for the Same Gym Membership (Investment)?

Consider an alternate universe. In this universe, gym memberships do not cost money. Instead, in exchange for patronizing a gym’s services, gym management insists that you eat several donuts each year. Weird, right? (While it is weird, it works well for explaining the pricing of investments products.)

If I exercise regularly – and the gym does not require that I eat too many donuts – I could probably lose weight for all my effort. However, if a particular gym requires eating lots and lots of donuts, I could likely end up fatter – or at least worse off than had I patronized a gym with a low donut eating requirement (ER). 

Now, consider two gyms that are literally identical: they have the same exercise machines, offer the same classes, are open for business during the exact same hours, are in the exact same location, and are even staffed by the exact same people – or maybe each person’s twin brother or sister. There is absolutely no difference between these two gyms – except the donut eating requirement (ER) of each gym.

The first gym, the Vanguard Group gym, requires that I eat five (5) donuts a year. In the end, the eating requirement (ER) of just five donuts a year would be negligible next to the benefits of regular exercise. Despite eating those five donuts each year, I would get in shape. In fact, I would be in better shape eating five donuts a year and exercising every day, than if I just sat at home and did nothing - eating zero donuts and not working out. Regular exercise would more than completely cancel out the small donut eating requirement (ER) of the Vanguard Group gym - leaving me fit and trim.


The other identical gym, the Haufenbrau Investments gym, requires that I eat 150 donuts a year. (While there is not a mutual fund company called Haufenbrau, there is a mutual fund company that will charge you 150 basis points annually for an S&P 500 index fund.) That is a substantially higher annual eating requirement (ER) than the Vanguard Group gym - especially considering that the gyms are identical. However, even if I do choose the Haufenbrau Investments gym, eating 150 donuts a year could probably be nullified by regular exercise. Naturally, I would end up in better shape over at the Vanguard Group gym - given Vanguard Group's low annual donut eating requirement. But in the end, the Haufenbrau Investments gym would also help me drop some pounds.

However, the Haufenbrau Investments gym also imposes an additional donut cost over its existing annual eating requirement (ER). Every time I work out, I am required to eat an additional 4.75% of my bodyweight in donuts! So, any effort to work more frequently - to cancel out the 150 donuts (ER) I have to eat annually - is itself nullified out when I am loaded up on donuts (4.75% load) each time I workout.

While it was entirely possible that I could get relatively fit by exercising regularly and having to eat just five donuts annually – I am unsure if I would even get in shape given the vast amount of donut consumption required by the Haufenbrau Investments gym. In fact, I am concerned that all my donut eating at the Haufenbrau Investments gym would cancel out my fitness goals – leaving me exactly where I started - or maybe even fatter!

Naturally, the Vanguard Group gym is the best solution. Since the gym is absolutely identical to the Haufenbrau Investments gym, the smaller donut eating requirement brings me much closer to realizing my fitness (investment) goals.

Now, to Haufenbrau Investments's credit – at least they are getting people to exercise. However, next to Vanguard, Haufenbrau's high annual donut eating requirement (ER) and the 4.75% donut load will not net much weight loss (investment gain).

That being said – why would anyone ever consider paying more (having to eat more donuts) for the exact same product? The simple answer is that without shopping around, a gym goer (read: investor) may not know that the Vanguard Group gym even exists. Further, an investor may not know about the mutual company structure of the Vanguard Group - a company structure that skirts normal business conflicts of interest.


Another reason for the success of companies like Haufenbrau Investments may be due to aggressive marketing efforts. Consider you’re solicited for a gym membership (mutual fund investment). You know that you should be exercising (saving for retirement), so the donut eating requirement (fee) sounds reasonable - in part because you have no idea what the other gyms are charging. Also, those gym contracts and accompanying fees are sometimes made purposefully confusing.

Most people are not dieticians (investment advisors), so the high donut eating requirements (fee) may come across as particularly extreme (expensive). However, with a little knowledge, the exercise junkee knows that the exact same product can be had for less. This way, you're saving for retirement and not eating so many donuts so as to cancel out your investment gains.

Friday, October 11, 2013

It Goes Both Ways

In a previous post, we saw an example of the negative correlation of Long-Term United States Treasuries to the broad market. (For a primer on negative correlation, read this and this.) In that example, the broad market  saw negative returns for the moment. At the same time, United States long-term Treasuries were up.

In another instance of the negative (or inverse) correlation of United States long-term Treasuries to the broad market, see the snapshot below of yesterday's market performance. Every asset class listed below shows a positive return. The one exception is United States Treasuries - both nominal and inflation-adjusted (TIPS).


Remember to interpret the above not as a danger of holding Long Term Treasuries. It is quite the opposite. Consider the diversification value of holding assets with low or negative correlation. In the event that one asset class is down, another asset class will be up. This "hedge" functions to buffer your portfolio from  downward movements.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Case Study: Buy Term & Invest the Difference (BTID)


As mentioned, recent blog posts were inspired by a conversation with a future family member about permanent life insurance. As argued, a downside of a term life policy is that there is no cash value at the expiration of the policy. While that is accurate, the trade-off is that a permanent life policy costs so much more than a term life policy. This significant difference in premiums (monthly payments) presents the opportunity to invest that difference. In today’s post, we take a very close look at the numbers by performing an actual case study for the term versus permanent life debate.

San Diego Life Permanent Life Policy Case Study

There are two strategies being compared. The first strategy is to purchase a permanent life policy. For this case study, I have the fortune of using real data from a San Diego Life permanent life policy quoting benefits for a female non-tobacco user age 43, for $500,000 of coverage. (San Diego Life is not the real name of the company.)
Our second strategy is to “buy term and invest the difference (BTID).” For this comparison, I am using quotes for a term life policy from intelliquote.com. Why this site? It’s the number one result when Googling for a term life quote. (This is not an endorsement for the site.)

Running The Numbers

The data from this specific San Diego Life policy shows an annual premium of $12,000. Alternatively, quotes for a 20 year term life policy providing $500,000 of coverage for a female non-tobacco user age 43 vary from as little as $549 per year, to as much as $4,005 per year.


For the initial comparison, consider the more expensive $4,005 term life premium. The San Diego Life uses an assumed nominal (not counting for inflation) growth rate of 10% annually. For equity, we’ll apply that same rate to the “invest the difference” strategy – but tax dividends annually at the highest marginal rate: 53.7%.

Taxes - Dividends
Federal, Unqualified Dividends
39.6%
Medicare Surtax
3.8%
California Highest Marginal Tax Rate
10.3%
Total Dividend Taxes - Applied Annually
53.7%
 
Further, capital gains will be taxed at 34.1% after 20 years.

Taxes - Capital Gains
Federal
20.0%
Medicare Surtax
3.8%
California Marginal Tax Rate
10.3%
Total Capital Gain Taxes - Applied at Distribution
34.1%

This gives the BTID strategy a return of 6.91% annually, net of taxes. Below is the performance of the two strategies over 20 years.


When it comes to San Diego Life's permanent life policy, reading the fine print matters. San Diego Life’s permanent life insurance policy has a 20% + $25 surrender fee. Over 20 years, that’s the difference between a capped maximum of $250,000 for the permanent life policy against the after-tax value of over $324,000 with a buy-term-and-invest-the-difference (BTID) strategy. That’s a difference of over $74,000.

"... the BTID strategy comes out on top by... $74,478"


Even with taxes eating away at over a quarter of gains, the BTID strategy comes out on top by a large margin - a margin of $74,478. Even ignoring the cap of $250,000 in benefits for the San Diego Life permanent life policy, a quick look at the graph above reveals the rate at which the BTID strategy outpaces the cash value offered by the permanent life policy.

 

Running Better Numbers

Recall that these computations were performed assuming a term life policy with an annual premium of over $4,000. That’s an unusually high premium. A more likely scenario is a policy premium of around $500, with (qualified) dividends and capital gains being taxed at just 15%. Given this more realistic scenario, the 20 year difference in a permanent vs. BTID strategy is over $380,000.

Why the startling difference in returns? Consider that in the first year of this permanent life policy, there is no cash (surrender) value. Why? Because that money goes to pay for agent commissions. Further, each year (after the first), the permanent life policy adds around $6,000 in principal. This is roughly half of the annual premium. In contrast, the BTID strategy contributes over $11,000 each year. That's the savings available (for investment) when purchasing a term life policy over a permanent life policy.

Simple math dictates higher returns in the absence of a middleman.

Conclusion

For certain high net worth individuals, a permanent life policy provides particular  tax advantages for estate purposes. However, if your net worth is less than $10.5 million, the case study above of an actual San Diego Life permanent life policy proves BTID as the more lucrative investment strategy. Proponents of permanent life argue the value of the forced savings aspect. However, savings/investing can be easily automated - requiring no additional effort on the part of the individual beyond the initial set up. See below.

Given the data provided by this actual case study of a San Diego Life permanent life policy, it is not surprising that many financial planners advocate for clients to buy a term life policy, and then invest that difference themselves (BTID). If you’re unsure of how to do just that, you can speak with a fee-only financial planner (and not a commission-based  financial salesman) about setting up automatic withdrawals from your checking account to invest in a low-cost target date fund.